10 CPMS windscreen PCNs

[CPMSRO]

Hi all, 

 

Long story short:

 

I am an overseas student who had parked my car (June 2019) at my friend's new flat that he had just purchased, I then left the UK for three months for summer holiday.

 

When I got back in September to pick up my car, there were 10 parking tickets from CPMs on my windscreen (totalling 1000 GBP).

It was only then my friend realised that he had initially mistaken the parking space numbers and told me to park in the wrong bay (property/parking space confirmation email he received from his solicitor in April vaguely mentions that he had bought space 121, but he was later confirmed that the one he actually owns is space 63 when he received the formal lease in August).

 

The tickets states that my car was parked in the wrong allocated bay, which is true, and I understand that we did make a mistake, whether we were misled by his solicitor or not.

 

Considering my only intention was to park at a my friend's parking space, hence not trespassing, it's just extremely unfair to just leave 10 parking tickets on my windscreen without properly informing me at all. I was not able to find out about the tickets (and that I was parking on someone else's space as I physically wasn't in the country) It just seems like a mere tactics for CPMs to maximise their profits, as there was no way for us to move the car away to avoid the subsequent tickets anyway even if I did know about them, as my friend does not actually have a driving licence.

 

I have made an appeal to CPMs but they have rejected it and told me that they have extended the 'discount' period, meaning that I would still have to pay 10 tickets of 60 GBP each. There is no way I will be able to afford this amount of fine and therefore I would like to seek some advice on this matter.

 

Thanks for reading this long paragraph and the information

 

Here is my appeal letter and CPMs' reply in case anyone is interested:

 

My Appeal

To whom it may concern,

  

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

My friend had given permission for me to park my car in a parking space that he owns over the summer holiday.

I parked my car on 18th June 2019, went away from the UK on 20th June 2019.

 

I returned on to the carpark on 26th September 2019 after I returned to the UK on 25th September 2019 (see attachment 2 and 3 for boarding passes as proof), only to find 7 parking tickets stuck onto my windscreen. I phoned CPMS straight away and explained my situation, the man on the phone refused to deal with my situation and asked me to appeal through email.

  

I am the keeper of this vehicle and this is my appeal.

On the above dates, the quoted PCNs were issued quoting “Parked in someone else’’s allocated bay”.

I now appeal this notice on the following grounds:

1. Misleading mistake not responsible by the car owner’s party;

2. Car owner physically not present in the UK to be informed/to move the car;

3. Contravention of the BPA operation procedures;

4. The charge was not a genuine pre-estimate of loss;

5. No actionable trespass;

6. Incorrect trading disclosures;

7. No authority to levy charges; and

8. No contract.

 

 

1. MISTAKE ON THE PROPERTY PURCHASE CONFIRMATION EMAIL FROM THE SOLICITOR

I was given permission by my friend, who had recently purchased parking space 121 at XXX as informed by his property agent/solicitor, to park on space 121.

A property purchase confirmation email was received by my friend from the solicitor on 1st April 2019 (seen in attachment 1), confirming that my friend had bought parking space 121.

 

However, my friend was not informed that he actually owned space 63, and the mistake by the solicitor (including the wrong parking space number) in the original confirmation email until four months later, when a formal lease of my friend’s parking space/property (stating that my friend owns space 63) was received in August.

 

We were misled into parking into the wrong parking space (space 121) as we were not aware of the mistake in the property purchase confirmation email, clearly showing that the responsibility does not lie on my friend (owner of space 63) and I, as we only intended to park in the space my friend owns (for which we thought was space 121 as stated in the purchase confirmation email). Therefore, it is an extremely unfair practice to charge a  £1000 fine on me only because I was misled into parking into the wrong parking space by the solicitor.

 

 

2. CAR OWNER PHYSICALLY NOT PRESENT IN THE UK TO BE INFORMED/TO MOVE THE CAR FROM SPACE 121

As mentioned above, I left the UK for a summer holiday on 20 June 2019 and only returned on 25 September 2019 (please see attachment 2 and 3 for the boarding passes as my proofs of absence from the country).

 

This means that there was no way for me, as the car owner, to be informed about the parking tickets. I would not have seen the seven parking tickets stuck on my windscreen and the letters sent to my address as I was physically absent from the country.

 

It is totally unreasonable to just leave seven tickets on my car’s windscreen without properly informing me, as the car owner, that my car was parked in the wrong space, especially when it was only due to a mistake on the confirmation email, which is entirely not my fault.

 

Furthermore, by the time my friend found out about the mistake in the purchase confirmation email in August, I was already out of the country, meaning that there was nothing I could have done to move my car away from space 121 and back into space 63 that my friend actually owns (my friend, parking space 63 owner would not be able to move the car either as he is not insured to drive my car, nor does he have a driving licence).

 

Considering that the multiple tickets stuck on the windscreen were clearly visible to the parking enforcement officer, yet CPMS still chose to just issue the subsequent tickets, instead of actually attempting to reach out to the car owner via the XXX management, it is highly debatable whether it is a mere strategy for CPMS to maximise its profits by issuing as many parking tickets as possible, or to actually solve the situation by contacting the car owner to move the car.

 

Therefore, it is extremely unfair to me to be charged multiple parking tickets (10 tickets totaling £1000) when I was not informed nor I was physically in the country to be able to do anything to avoid the subsequent tickets.

 

 

3. CONTRAVENTION OF THE BPA OPERATION PROCEDURES

Several notices to keep were received on 28th September 2019. I was not in the UK from the period of 20/6/2019 to 25/9/2019 as mentioned above, meaning that there was no way for me to be informed about the parking tickets to move my car to avoid subsequent tickets or to even make an appeal. Again, it is totally unreasonable for CPMS to just charge ten parking fines on me.

 

Furthermore, these letters contained incorrect details of how to appeal to POPLA.

Following a complaint to the BPA, the POPLA code was shown to be invalid. A

 

s stated at rule 22.12 of the BPA Code of Practice, if a challenge is rejected, the operator must “tell the driver how to make an appeal to POPLA.

This includes providing a template ‘notice of appeal’ form, or a link to the appropriate website for lodging an appeal”.

Its failure to do so prevented me from the benefit of rule 22.14: “Drivers and keepers may appeal against a parking charge to POPLA".

 

 

4. THE CHARGE IS NOT A GENUINE PRE-ESTIMATE OF LOSS

The demand for £100 is punitive, unreasonable, exceeds an appropriate amount, and has no relationship to the loss that would likely have been suffered by the landowner. It is therefore not a genuine pre-estimate of the landlord’s loss, and is an unenforceable penalty.

 

Additionally or in the alternative, the £100 penalty exceeds that of the BPA Code of Practice. The BPA Code of Practice states:

 

19.5 If the parking charge that the driver is being asked to pay is for a breach of contract or act of trespass, this charge must be based on the genuine pre-estimate of loss that you suffer.

 

19.6 If your parking charge is based upon a contractually agreed sum, that charge cannot be punitive or unreasonable.

 

Therefore, CPMS Manchester must provide a detailed breakdown of how the amount of the charge was calculated, which is not at all stated in the parking tickets. According to previous court and POPLA adjudications, the cost of running the business may not be included in these pre-estimates of loss.

 

 5. NO ACTIONABLE TRESPASS

As mentioned above, my friend actually owns a parking space (space 63) at the XXX carpark, meaning I have the permission to access the XXX carpark, given that he had given me permission to park at his parking space. My only intention was to park in the parking space that my friend owns, for which we had been misled into thinking that was space 121, as stated above.

 

Furthermore, this suggests that there has been no proper action is that of trespass, as I was given permission by a property owner to access the carpark.

No physical damage was done to the car park.

 

Moreover, parking space 63 had not been used, i.e. it was empty, at the time which my car was on the site.

As a result, the landowner has suffered no loss through damage or a loss of opportunity.

 

In the alternative that my car was causing a loss of opportunity, towing it away would have clearly been the more viable option than just issuing ten parking tickets to me, who was obviously unable to be informed about/do anything to avoid the situation.

 

If CPMS Manchester alleges trespass, it must justify the £100 of loss it now seeks. Full particulars of loss must be provided. Costs of enforcement are not recoverable losses for the purposes of this calculation.

 

 

6. INCORRECT TRADING DISCLOSURES

CPMS Manchester has not demonstrated the correct trading disclosures on its signs or correspondence, as required by the Companies (Trading Disclosures) Regulations 2008. As a result, I am unsure with whom I am dealing, or in what capacity any activities have been undertaken. There may be no company, sole trader or partnership lawfully trading as CPMS Manchester. If so, CPMS has no legal personality, and cannot enter contracts, serve legal notices or give evidence in this appeal.

 

Alternatively, CPMS Manchester may be the trading name of a company, sole trader or partnership. However, due to the omission of necessary statutory disclosures, CPMS Manchester cannot enter valid contracts, serve valid notices, or give evidence until such time as it identifies itself in the proper manner.

 

 

7. NO AUTHORITY TO LEVY CHARGES

A parking management company requires legal authorisation to contract with the consumer on the landowner’s behalf and bring an action for breach of contract, either as agent or by assignment of that right. I believe that CPMS Manchester has no such authorisation to bring this action in its own name, or as assignee of the right of the landowner. I, therefore, request to see the contract, or any other evidence that CPMS Manchester has the right to pursue this action.

 

 

8. NO CONTRACT

There was no contract between me and CPMS Manchester. No contractual information was displayed on any reasonably prominent signs, and I did not see any such signs containing sufficient contractual terms when entering the car park. I was therefore unaware of any parking terms. As no terms were displayed with reasonable prominence, and no terms actually existed, there could be no agreed terms between me and CPMS Manchester, and no contract.

 

In the alternative, were a valid contract to exist, then its terms are unfair as per the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and unreasonable as per the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. In either case, any such terms are void and unenforceable.

 

 I consider this a serious breach of the Code of Practice, which did not give me a fair chance to be informed to: move my car or to appeal. As a result, this large amount of fine has had huge impact on my mental health as I am here to face an extremely unfair amount of parking fine, with already tight finance. As an undergraduate student, this has been a great burden on both my mental health and my time.

 

For the above reasons, I respectfully request that my appeal is upheld and the charge dismissed. 

 

Yours Sincerely,

X

 

CPMS' response

Thank you for your appeal received on 30/09/2019 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice. We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made. This appeal has been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered by the parking attendant. Our records show that the notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in breach of the Terms and Conditions of Parking.

We are therefore unable to cancel the Parking Charge Notice as it was issued correctly. We have now extended the discounted payment period by 14 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement amount. Please now make payment of £60 to reach us by 24/10/2019 or £100 to reach us by 07/11/2019. We must advise you that once the discounted settlement rate passes it will not be offered again.

Parking on this site is on an allocated basis only,

you must only park in your own allocated marked bay.

If unable to do so you must contact us on the numbers provided.

This is clearly stated on our signage.

 

Your vehicle was parked in someone else's allocated bay which is why the parking charge notice was issued.

The rest of the Internet download you have sent we presume is for BPA members, we are members of the IPC, not withstanding please refer to POFA 2012 & Beavis v parking eye supreme court ruling 2015 regarding pre estimate of loss etc,

 

you may of parked in the incorrect bay unknowingly but that doesn’t help the resident who has been unable to park in their own bay for a considerable amount of time, this appeal relates to this pcn and a further 9 issued against your vehicle, if you wish to make an offer to settle these PCNs you may contact us on the details you
already have.

Please DO NOT send cash through the post.

Call the automated payment line on 0344 848 1410.

Payments can also be made via Internet banking - sort code 40-46-32 Account number 81884751 quoting your charge number as reference, or by postal order.

 

Please ensure you write your Parking Charge Notice number clearly on the reverse.

If you believe this decision is incorrect, you are entitled to appeal to the Independent Appeals Service (IAS).

 

In order to appeal you will need your parking charge number, your vehicle registration and the date the charge was originally issued.

Appeals must be submitted to the IAS within 21 days of the date of this letter.

please visit www.theias.org for full details.

Please note you cannot appeal to the IAS at the reduced rate.

Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department

[dx100uk]

opps next time don't appeal or more correctly not stating you were the driver.

bang..shot youself in the foot.,

 

never mind 

supremacy of contract far outweighs their claims

but I cant see them giving up for this amount of money being involved.

[CPMSRO]

they did mention the following in their response though,

 

'this appeal relates to this pcn and a further 9 issued against your vehicle, if you wish to make an offer to settle these PCNs you may contact us on the details you already have'.

 

I am kind of confused what they mean by that,

can someone please explain to me whether they are looking for me to make an offer less than the original 600gbp  fine they are demanding to settle the fine?

[dx100uk]

fine?

where does it say these are fines please?

 

dx

[CPMSRO]

Oh sorry, I meant 'the 600gbp worth of PCNs"*, thought PCNs and fine meant the same.

 

But I wonder if they would take the offer if i were to pay 300gbp instead of the original 600gbp

 

Thanks

Jay

[Mrs O'Frog]

You say you are an overseas student - where is the car registered to and where is your home country?

[CPMSRO]

 

My car is registered in the UK unfortunately, and I am from Hong Kong

[lookinforinfo]

I wouldn't contemplate offering them a penny at the moment.

 

Before they can legally demand money from you they have to jump through a number of hurdles themselves.

They usually fall over at least one of those hurdles so that you do not owe them a penny.

 

just relax and we will point out ways in which they fail.

 

Could you please post up one of the PCNs to see if they have gone wrong with that one.

Then please check  the wording of the others since they should all be the same.

If not, please post up the different ones.

[dx100uk]

read upload

use PDF only please

bothsides on one file

 

 

 

 

[lookinforinfo]

If you are unclear about the post above please answer the following questions being guided by dx100uk info.

 

[ericsbrother]

they are telling you that your appeal for one ticket has failed and are offering to let you pay the lot in one go rather than appeal them separately.Not exactly an offer you cant refuse.

 

we need to see the signage at the site, I bet it is prohibitive in nature an thus will get them nowhere. As a lot of money is involved they will take this one to court as they can clobber you IF they win. your job is to amke that impossible so ask your mate for detaisl of the lease for the flat. If it isnt his then a look at the land registry entry ( was £3) may provide some help.

 

In the meanwhile dont sweat over this and see what they do next and while you are waiting get the pictures of the entrance to the land, signs, parking spaces and numeration etc